Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Wendy Murphy File

To suggest [the indicted players] were well behaved: Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child.--“CNN Live,” 3 May 2006

I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

Three elements of this case distinguish it from its high-profile criminal counterparts. First, the behavior and statements of the students’ own professors were cited as grounds for a change of venue—an action all but unprecedented in modern American criminal law. Second, blogs have played an important (and, I would argue, helpful) role. Third, the 24-hour cable news networks seized upon the case from the start, and have continued commentary more sporadically thereafter.

Sometimes, these shows have offered quality commentary—the “Abrams Report” early on, some broadcasts of “Greta” in recent weeks. Often, however, these programs feature little more than talking heads, with one adopting a pro-prosecution slant and another praising the defense.

A frequent guest on MSNBC, FOX, and CBS has been Wendy Murphy. Usually described as a former “sex crimes prosecutor” and law professor at Boston’s New England School of Law, she’s actually an adjunct professor, an inconvenient fact she rarely, if ever, reveals. Murphy defended Nifong in a recent USA Today op-ed—and her remarks were eviscerated by Liestoppers, which also has nominated her as a “hag of the hoax.”

Murphy’s bizarre claims to USA Today prompted me to perform a Lexis/Nexis search of her myriad case-related appearances. The results were deeply disturbing. In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.

Given that the preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states that “a lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system, and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice,” Murphy’s behavior raises some serious questions:

What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

How could the Massachusetts Bar license such a figure to practice law?

How could Dean John O’Brien of New England School of Law allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

Untrue Statements

Section 3 of the Preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states: “As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law, and work to strengthen legal education.”

Murphy, on the other hand, has regularly gone on national television and cultivated not knowledge but its opposite, over and over again offering factually inaccurate statements.

1.) (22 December 2006) “One of the reasons I think she should be thought of as fairly credible is that she rejected a 2 million dollar plus offer by people on behalf of Duke at the outset.”

In fact, the accuser told police on June 30 that she had never been offered any money, by anyone, to drop the case.

2.) (1 May 2006) “All the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.”

In fact, these photographs have been cited in various defense motions, and even Nifong hasn’t challenged their veracity.

3.) (11 April 2006) “You know, these guys actually . . . some of them have been, according to neighbors, reportedly been involved in not only carousing activity but other sexual offenses.”

I am aware of no statement, by any neighbor, accusing any of the players of involvement in “other sexual offenses”; the Coleman Committee Report established that they had no such records.

4.) (19 April 2006) “All of them took the Fifth. All of them refused to cooperate. All of them refused to give a DNA sample, until the court produced an order compelling them to do so.”

In fact, Dave Evans, Dan Flannery, and Matt Zash gave multi-hour statements to the police, voluntarily gave DNA samples, and offered to take lie-detector tests. No player has invoked the Fifth Amendment at any point in this case.

5.) (17 April 2006) “These kinds of [photo] time stamps . . . could be off by a wide margin. But it’s important to note here the other woman involved here has heard this spin, if you will, by the defense, and has said ‘That timeline is way off.’”

In fact, while in two early interviews Kim Roberts criticized the players and their attorneys, she never made the statement, or anything resembling it, that Murphy attributed to her.

6.) (19 April 2006) “If you think that I would believe for a minute the spin coming out of one of these defense attorneys, given their silence around the DNA report, their deafening silence and lawyering up in the immediate aftermath of the crime.”

In fact, most of the players waited more than a week after the party to retain counsel.

7.) (17 April 2006) “Brett and Matt happen to be the real names of two of the captains who lived in that home.”

In fact, the three residents of the house were named Matt Zash, Dan Flannery, and Dave Evans.

8.) (21 April 2006) “It could have helped her, if she had been drunk . . . but she clearly wasn’t.”

In fact, the accuser informed UNC doctors that not only was she drunk, but she followed the dangerous course of consuming alcohol while taking Flexeril, risking side-effects that included badly impaired judgment.

9.) (27 April 2006) “It was because a broom handle was used, which by the way, doesn’t produce DNA when you put it inside someone.”

The search warrant for the lacrosse house contained no mention of a broom; and at no point in her myriad stories did the accuser claim assault by a broom.

10.) (2 May 2006) “The broomstick DNA has not yet been revealed.”

In fact, no “broomstick DNA” exists, since the police never seized a broomstick.

11.) (5 April 2006) “She had a torn genital area.”

In fact, in a recent court filing, even Mike Nifong conceded, “There is no scientific or other evidence independent of the [accuser’s] testimony that would corroborate specifically” a charge of rape.

12.) (24 May 2006) “Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty.”

In fact, no credible study exists contending more than 99 percent of people indicted are guilty.

13.) (16 May 2006) Remember, this is the guy [Dave Evans] who the victim said she’s 90 percent certain he assaulted her, and then as it turns out, she also apparently described that she scratched him, and we find his DNA under her fingernails.

In fact, the DNA report could not exclude Evans; no definitive match existed, as Dr. Brian Meehan made clear in his December testimony.

14.) (11 May 2006) “According to Durham president, the president of the university [Duke?], he said March 22 in a press release, many players weren’t there that night. Well, what does that tell us? It tells us the defense motion [on the lineup] is a bunch of nonsense, because if many players weren’t there, it’s a darned good chance if this was a hoax that she could have gotten it wrong.”

In fact, Richard Brodhead made no statement, of any kind, about the case on March 22; and he never claimed, one way or the other, to possess knowledge on who did or did not attend the party.

15.) (2 May 2006) “She was under the influence of a date rape drug.”

In fact, a toxicology report indicated no such finding.

16.) (13 June 2006) “The defense, very early on, filed a motion--I’ll call it a motion to shut up the prosecutor--so the prosecutor could suffer a suppression of evidence, a motion to dismiss the charges, as punishment for speaking publicly.”

In fact, as this library of defense motion reveals, no such motion exists.

17.) (22 June 2006) “The defense today, if this really is a big hoax, could have said to the judge, in writing or verbally, ‘Judge, I want a trial date ASAP.’ Call it a speedy trial motion; call it whatever you want. They had a right today to ask that this case go to trial immediately. And the whole thing would be over by August.”

In fact, North Carolina does not grant defendants such a right—and, contrary to Murphy’s repeated assertions, Reade Seligmann’s attorney, Kirk Osborn, filed such a motion.

18.) “And maybe what she said, which makes her particularly credible, is, ‘These guys didn’t ejaculate on or inside of my body,’ which means she deserves extra credibility because no one’s suggesting that she lied about whether there would be DNA found on her person.”

In fact, depending on which story she happened to be telling, the accuser claimed that either one or two of her alleged attackers ejaculated.

How could New England School of Law, which describes itself as an “educational community characterized by substantive instruction with a strong foundation in ethics,” allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

Wholly unfounded speculation

Quite beyond her factually inaccurate statements, Murphy has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation—imagining evidence that she would have no reason to believe exists, or events that she would have no reason to believe occurred. Examples include:

1.) (19 June 2006) “Let me tell you what I think [Nifong] probably has—statements from some of the players who are probably cooperating because they actually have a conscience and think it matters when you tell the truth. And I bet she has GHB in her blood.”

2.) (26 Dec. 2006) “There’s a good chance a few of [the players] actually saw what happened and may well be cooperating.”

3.) (26 Dec. 2006) “Are there photographs? We know there were before photographs and after photographs. There’s a chance there are during photographs.”

4.) (5 April 2006) The players were “thinking, ‘I was entitled to do this. I’m a member of a wealthy white boy’s school in a community that allow me to do what I want when I want. They’ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time. Why not go home and celebrate?’ . . . The e-mail shows that these guys were of the mind that whatever had happened to this woman was just another day at the beach. They’ll rape her, sodomize her and tomorrow they’ll kill her.”

6.) (11 May 2006) “[The accuser] said I’m 100 percent certain it was this guy and that guy. And the third guy I think who’s about to be indicted is apparently named Dan. There are four Dans on the team. I want to put some money on the fact that a Dan will be indicted next week.”

7.) (9 April 2006) “If the DNA isn’t going to match, they wouldn’t need to do this. It’s almost comical that they think a photograph is proof positive that a rape didn’t happen. It’s not a smoking gun. It’s a muddying of the waters.”

8.) (10 April 2006) “What [the players] did was clam up and say, ‘Let’s stick together so we can get away with this.’”

No evidence exists to substantiate any of the above statements.

Denigrating Due Process

Section 3 of the Preamble to the Massachusetts State Bar’s Rules of Professional Conduct states the following: “A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers, and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

Murphy, on the other hand, has exhibited what borders on contempt for due process, as the examples below suggest.

1.) (August 7) “How about the defense attorneys shutting up.”

2.) (May 2) “Stop with the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t apply to Duke . . . When they make administrative decisions about student behavior they don’t owe them any due process.”

3.) (May 1) “I’m really tired of people suggesting that you’re somehow un-American if you don’t respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you’re a liar.”

4.) (May 1) “Defense attorneys lie with impunity.”

5.) (April 10) “These guys, like so many rapists—and I’m going to say it because, at this point, she’s entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim.”

Occasionally, Murphy has offered statements that, with passage of time, come across as unintentionally ironic.

On August 7, for instance, she asserted that “the defense attorneys are hiding [DNA reports].” We now know that someone was hiding DNA material—but it wasn’t the defense. And on June 19, she stated, “I want to vote [Nifong] up. Whatever, you know, next rung of the ladder prosecutors can go at, he deserves to be promoted and celebrated.” In light of the state bar’s filing of ethics charges, I doubt many people would consider Nifong a suitable candidate for promotion.

Again, I ask:

· What sort of network would put such a figure on the air?

· How could such a figure be licensed to practice law?

· How could New England School of Law allow such a figure to teach future lawyers?

186 comments:

bill anderson
said...

K.C., I am glad you pointed out that she is adjunct at NELS. Furthermore, it has been several years since she taught a course. I looked her up on the Rate My Professor page, and there were no comments at all.

Given her mouth, you know that if she taught a course recently, people would have an opinion. So, my guess is that she is no more a law professor than I am a college president.

I would like to know her role in prosecutions in Massachusetts. As you know, Massachusetts has real problems with wrongful convictions, and is the place where the Amirault (Fells Acre) bogus child molestation case was held. I think that Murphy might have had something to do with the prosecution, although the main prosecutor was Scott Harshbarger, who later was head of Common Cause.

(I despise Harshbarger and the others in that case. Think of him as a junior Nifong.)

At any rate, you did very well on this one, and I am glad to see you have exposed the woman for the liar that she is. Great job.

Equally disturbing is the lack of balanced coverage by those bloggers who, with such voracity, gouged into the very hearts of the three men back in M/A/M of this year. It's as though people like Murphy and others wanted so badly to have these accusations found true that they were all willing to dismiss the effects of how trampling the rights of individuals bodes poorly for all of us. What should have occurred early on is for Murphy et. al. to have stepped up (not aside) and pronounce this case as just one more example of ill-treatment by rogue law enforecement officials. To apply a quote from an unrelated matter, Murphy and others "never fail to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Thank you KC. I can't stand this woman. (I am female.) She screams at me from the TV with hypothetical silliness that anyone with passing knowledge of the case or the law knows are outlandish at best. I even emailed Tucker to beg him not to let this shrieking excuse for an expert on anymore. I really can't stand to watch and when she is on, I turn the channel even though I watch nightly for Duke LAX updates.Really, thanks.

I believe that two people need to be targeted by a letters campaign to state bars. One, of course, is Murphy, and her statements speak for themselves.

The other is Irving Joyner. He, too, has been extremely irresponsible, to put it mildly. He has called for the court to ignore exculpatory evidence, has all but encouraged a jury to get a conviction, and continues to muddy the waters.

Joyner is free to speak as a private citizen, but he has been speaking as a lawyer and as a law professor. In other words, he has been in a semi-official capacity, and it seems that the Bar rules do not permit the kinds of statements that Joyner has made.

Maybe I am off base here, but it seems to me that there ought to be complaints filed against both of these people.

Great job, KC. This woman is truly remarkable in that she's lied about virtually every important aspect of the case.

Bill, if she was involved in the Fells Acre case, that would not surprise me...that case is an outrage in its own right. Perhaps when Duke LAX finally winds down the blogosphere should turn to that issue.

Bill: I will gladly target Nifong, but I don't quite feel that way about Murphy. Yes, she's crazy, she makes outrageous comments, and she's an avowed man-hater. I dislike her intensely, and have a very low opinion of her as an attorney. Personally, I would have her flustered within seconds of my opening statement, and it would probably go downhill from there for her. All emotions, no analytical thought going into it for her by what I see. Thus, a "former" prosecutor.

But, with that said, she has no real obligations in this case because she is not personally involved, she has not entered her appearance, etc. In terms of her ethical obligations, she is, IMHO, in a safe place.

However, and this is a very large however, her comments are certainly libelous. The Defendants, and probably the rest of the tesm, have an excellent cause of action against her, and nancy Grace, who I also can't stand. I would be thinking more along the lines of civil liability than ethical obligations regarding her at this point.

Nor does the Bar want to go here either for good reason. It is a fine line when the Bar turns into the thought police. If you don't think this is a big deal, think again. In my own State, which has an incredibly (and annoyingly) liberal Bar and political powerbase, once this line is crossed, it turns into oppression time for those lawyers that "dare" think and advocate conservative positions. I do not even hint at my true name for that reason on these posts. I donlt want that getting logged and stuck in my back later.

1:08 - Yes. Be afraid. I have known the Evans family since I was two years old, I have known Dave since he wore didies (heck, I was there when he first started throwing a lacrosse ball), and I don't DARE whisper what I really think to other lawyers even though this is the most aggregious miscarriage of justice I have ever seen.

Somehow, in media marketing land, moguls somehow saw "controversial, outspoken uber-bitch femme-nazi lawyers" as ratings gold.I don't know if it is true or not, but they do. The fact that Murphy is on Fox, CBS, CNN, Court TV, NPR and MSNBC all bespeaks to evidence that she makes them money like Allred and Nancy Grace as the "woman you hate, but have to watch".

Both Grace and Murphy seem to have very puffed up credentials compared to what they actually have done in real life and how well they did. Weak academia backgrounds.. Grace has major ethics accusations of prosecutorial misconduct that didn't stick with the bar, but have stuck in real life with person after person in Atlanta saying she was a bad apple. Murphy is somehow tied up with the day care child molestation cases, as a staffer to the DA who helped burn a few who later turned out to be innocent.

Both posture as "legal experts". Both would not make any legal rating groups selection as "top of their field" though. I doubt they would even be on the list.Murphy is touted as "Professor of law" and expert in victims rights law. As others have noted, she is just an adjunct Prof. and her listed area of specialty is Sexual Violence:Perspectives in Law (And we have all been treated to Murphy's lies and misrepresentations in context with her perspective.)

I believe that Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ knows some things about Murphy and has already immersed Murphy in her notoriously acid prose in one essay.

***************What I do know is she is a '83 grad of Boston College who supposedly had a stint as a cheerleader for the New England Patriots. Married with 3 children. Active in the feminist movement as a "women's legal advocate" and she has done several conferences at New England School of Law and Harvard.The topics suggest KC would find his file greatly enriched by obtaining the transcripts, if anyone with an "in" to Harvard or NE School of Law can help.

Her topic from a 2002 NESL Conference she chaired suggests self-parody. Her contribution? A lecture "Rape and the Failure of Law Reform: What's Still Wrong and What You Can Do About It",

She also is a big legal advocate of "recovered memories" "victims too traumatized to give initial reliable testimony".

********************I don't know if she is just a psychotic nasty bitch or a clever feminist tossing red meat to the rubes.

And good legal commentators don't need either the hate, emotional manipulation of the audience to have good ratings results. Look at Dan Abrams before he went executive or Megyn Kendall.

It does appear Murphy has abused her law license and affiliation with NESL through all the lies KC Johnson and have caught her in.

I do think that any book on the Duke rape or screenplay would made greatly more marketable by devoting time to some of Nifongs more "colorful" enablers like Lubia, Victoria Peterson, Gottlieb, Joyner, and Murphy. All are tempting pieces of candy to any book publisher or movie producer that can play it against the gravitas of Coleman, Cheshire, young Evans.

As surely as I've had to learn along the way, to my surprise, that even medical doctors have been convicted of being multiple murderers, I've had to learn about people like Murphy who show that some "professors" are total simpletons.

The only course I could find on the NELS web page that fit the desrciption of what Windy Murphy teaches is, get this, an elective...

Persp: Sexual Violence (PS504) - 2 Credits (Elective)Focuses on how the legal system treats victims of sexual violence and explores strategies for change. The class explores the historical development of the crime of rape and related criminal sexual violence laws. The class then examines modern evidentiary principles and trial strategies employed in sexual assault cases, including "special rules" applicable only to sexual assault cases, such as "rape shield laws" and "fresh complaint testimony." The course ends with an exploration of strategies for change, focusing on particular classes of victims, including victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and children. This course meets the seminar requirement.

PERSP: Prosecutorial Ethics - 2PERSP: Prosecutorial Ethics (PS285) - 2Credits (Elective) Examines the ethical responsibilities and obligations of the criminal prosecutor. Each class will include a discussion of selected readings and issues related to the various stages of the criminal process. Students should be familiar with the pertinent Model Rules of Professional Conduct and ABA Criminal Justice Standards discussed in the text. Students will be evaluated on class preparation and participation as well as a course paper.

I can not blame the networks for putting her on.. It is very difficult now, to find anyone dumb enough to support Nifong publicly. I have actualy read that Tucker (MSNBC) can not find anyone to defend Nifong.

The public after this case will always assosiate her with being dead wrong. Her tv career will be over. Any opinion she gives will be responded with "well you believed in Nifong, why should we listen to you now?

Thank you for this post. I just started following this case recently. When I first started encountering this woman's comments, I assumed that she had been misquoted or quoted out of contexts because her statments were so off the wall. Now I know that she is just a crank. The only thing I would add to KC's list, is Ms. Murphy's recent nonsensical comments that dropping the rape counts was some type of "brilliant" legal move that took the DNA evidence off the table and somehow made Difong's case even stronger. Finally, I think it says alot about the state of journalism that the NYT frequently quotes this woman as a legal expert in articles that imply that her views are representative of views held by thoughtful attorneys. A journalist who had some basic working knowledge of law would immediately recongize this woman as a fool.

Concerning Wendy Murphy you ask the reasonable question “What sort of a network would put such a person on the air”? I can only speculate, but I suspect it is the kind absolutely typical of contemporary American journalism. One of the tenets of such journalism is that full, probing, “balanced” discussion of complex issues consists of orchestrating confrontations between the most extreme advocates of irreconcilably polar views of the matter. Another tenet is that for every issue there are duly authorized “experts” pro and contra, most of them associated with educational institutions or lobbying organizations that differ from educational institutions only in their greater honesty in admitting partiality. The surprise is not that this formula so often results in an intellectual travesty, but that it sometimes almost works. But let me turn the question back on you. What kind of a blog hosts one jc from bc who, writing at 12:45 on a computer that apparently lacks a shift key, advances the causes of truth and justice with the opinion that “Wendy likes her ass smacked with a flounder”?

The only way they can advance their destructive agenda is to cook up false statistics to support no-logic emotion based arguments and repeat them ad nauseam until they are just accepted by the general public as "common knowlege".

K.C. great post. But the sophmoric comments by j cline (jc) need to be banned. They add nothing of substance and are amusing only to him. They are not intelligent enough to be truly offensive, but they are crass. Why do you tolerate the distraction?

Wendy will look forward, sadly, to a long and distinguished career in the media. Her rants on the Duke lacrosse hoax will be quickly forgotten and she will continue to flaunt her trash on right-wing talk shows. It's an old joke, but worth recalling.

White House says Earth is flat.

NYT headline: Opinions differ on shape of Earth.

The media are convinced that simply reporting the truth is boring, that we're all so brain-dead we go to sleep unless 2 clear sides devote considerable energy to bashing each other over the head.

That is why we see continuing nonsense such as evolution being presented as no more than a possibility and the Duke lacrosse hoax being discussed as though were anything more than simple abuse of power.

This is not Wendy's first time as a hired thug who drives up ratings by saying outrageous things. See for example http://mediamatters.org/items/200511300001 and let's not forget her involvement in the Fells Acre hoax.

I just looked at my copy of Rabinowitz's book, No Crueler Tyrannies, and apparently Murphy was just a commentator.

I understand the writer from Maryland and realize that people can be held hostage by ideological bar associations.

(For that matter, the social workers national association also demands now that anyone getting licensed in that profession have very specific left-wing political views, and I imagine that the bar will be soon to follow. We are in big, big trouble in this country, believe me, but that is for another time and another story.)

While Murphy is just a big mouth stuck on stupid, it seems that Joyner HAS been operating within a position as a lawyer. Read over his stuff, and you realize that you have a lawyer acting in his official capacity calling on a local jury to ignore exculpatory evidence.

I really think that Joyner stepped over the professional line, and it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone were to file a complaint against him.

Bill, I wonder why no one has filed a complaint on Joyner yet. He has taken the NAACP's position in this case. That Collin, David and Reade must go to prison to make up for things in the past. Even thou he has not said that outright. Just read between the lines.

I will be checking into my states ethics laws, I think Wendy needs a wake up call.

I think that Joyner has stepped WAY over the line in acting in his capacity as an attorney. While I doubt the NAACP is paying him to "observe" the case, nonetheless he was not asked to be the "observer" because he was just another person on the street.

Instead, the NAACP made the request precisely because of Joyner's position as a lawyer and as a law professor. In other words, he was acting in a quasi-professional category. This is even different than what Murphy is doing.

(Would anyone with sense hire either of these two people, given their outspoken love of prosecutorial misconduct? I doubt any prosecutor in Massachusetts would dare hire Murphy now, given her public statements. Any attorney who could spell E-V-I-L would file to have her removed.)

Wendy Murphy is openly playing a character. She knows her job is to be the "pro victim" person and so she does everything she can as though she were part of an improv troupe. Her issue, of course, is that she has no material as Nifong has never filed any papers explaining his position and his public statemetns are lies. To fulfill her role, she makes things up and just does not care who she hurts. I am sure she has a "its just show biz" attitude.

I can't even watch her anymore but she is not a serious person. I do think her statements are libelous but I dont believe anyone takes her seriously.

Joyner is much more disappointing, although I have not read anythig that he said that is remotely actionable or even against the ethical rules. (Maybe I am wrong, I just don't remember)

Joyner is disappoiting because of the central issues here, 1) how any why American courts convict the wrong people 2) the orthdoxy on college campuses and 3) media behavior, the first is one that Joyner should be committed to above all else. He abandoned principles for race politics and he must of known better.

1 - She did not read up on the case. For a lawyer appearing on a TV show, incredible, but in this case, I've seen it often with other lawyers on TV (how sad is that).

2 - She know about the case details and distorted the record, and I would say lied (I believed she lied, she could be stupid, but that stupid?) about the case for a political agenda.

gs, I think you are right in both of your statements. Many of the so called "legal experts" plainly had very little knowledge of the subject matter. It was clear that they were getting their information from the MSM and not bothering to do any research. Read the NYT and WAPO and watch Nancy Grace and they have all they need to know to be an expert. People like Murphy give meaning the old saying about experts--'ex means has been, spurt means drip under pressure'.

Yes she lied. People who are so dogmatic about agendas tend to not let the truth get in their way.

Actually Alan, in most cases the truth is very boring. If you break down the Duke case to its basics it is boring. Lacrosse team has a party, drinking occurs, drunken strippers appear, drunken strippers leave angry. That is about it. What is exciting about that? But it is the total truth.

Now what has happened afterwards, which is a complete hoax, makes the story exciting. In order to sell advertising the MSM had to keep the story going as long as they could. No one in their right mind would have bought nine months of advertising for the truth.

Why do we tolerate people like Joyner and continue to appease blacks with social programs that allow them all the benefits the rest of us do not enjoy. When will we stand up to this crap.

and 1:30..your pompous post needs to be brought up. I went to a 4th tier law school(probably losing my spot in better schools to foreigners and minorities who wasted their opportunities) and have done pretty well for myself even though I cant spell worth a lick. Ill put the success of my practice against yours any day assuming you even practice law.

For the boys, I am glad that the MSM has finally come to its senses, but I fear that there is something more sinister at play.

The MSM has now realized what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton knew from the start. The Post, LA times et al realize that this is the wrong case to attach the multicultural agenda to. Simply because it is demonstrably false.

Their mission now is to limit their damages. They'll throw Nifong under the bus and talk about prosecutorial misconduct and how he manipulated the evidence to obtain indictments and move this prosecution as far as he did.

The conversation that the MSM want to avoid is the one about the climate and atmosphere both in the academy and in the nation at large that allowed these boys to be offered up immediately to appease the gods of the politically correct. The left will try to villify Nifong and make him the main offender, but they will not discuss the gang of 88, broadhead's weakness, the long line of women's rights advocates and people for "social justice" who condemned these boys for being white males.

I can't help but to pick up on Wendy Murphy's comment about Hitler. We seem to like to make comparisons to Hitler when we find someone we don't like. But we must remember that Hitler did not act alone. He acted with the aid and assistance of the Nazi party, and his acts were condoned by a broad segment of the German society whether they acted on Hitler's agenda or sat by and allowed it to continue.

So, I can agree with the gang of 88's suggestion that this case stands for something much more than just the acts that happened, or as we we know now did not happen, that night. It stands for a culture that has become all too comfortable with villifying white males for that reason alone.

Nifong is by far not the only criminal here and all white people would be wise to recognize it.

from a non-lawyer: When I read this great post by KC, what immediately came to mind is a comment attributed to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". Ms. Murphy doesn't seem to know the difference between facts and opinions.

I dont care about Wendy Murphy. She is simply too far away from our State to even matter. Let her talk.

What bothers me is Joyner. Why is it someone from a local law school who has no brains yet has to be in a leadership position so other blacks can be taught by one of their own instead of the smartest people available(If NC Central didnt have to hire black faculty, their school would have a better reputation)gets to speak about the case purely on racist terms and take positions that are based on a racist agenda and not the truth with little or no worries of the repurcussions simply because he is black.

Outside of the recent lie about the exculpatory evidence, if Nifong was a black prosecutor, there would be no bar complaint based soley on his words and these bloggers would all be less outspoken in their criticism of him.

As some have already suggested, these talk shows HAVE to have someone taking the opposite viewpoint in any "debate" that they feature.

From my personal experience -- I've been on these types of shows -- the networks don't care if you know anything at all about the topic of the day. You show up at the studio a half hour before show time to get through makeup. While you're in makeup an assistant hands you a sheet of paper with the day's topic or topics you'll be expected to address. Attached are several sheets of articles from the papers, Internet or newswires. That's all the background you're supposed to need.

During the show the host turns to you and expects a VERY strong opinion stated very briefly. The stronger and more outrageous your remarks the better. Murphy has mastered this part of the process.

The reason we know Murphy is full of BS is because we know something about the case. We don't notice how much BS there is on these shows all the time because we don't follow those topics.

Believe me, 90 percent of what passes for informed opinion in these shows is completely made-up tripe.

I for one think it's good that the only person these shows can find to advance the pro-Nifong position is a pschopathic liar in a clown suit. The more outlandish she gets, the better it is for the side of truth and justice here.

I realize that commentators like Murphy are playing "roles" on these shows, but they are also destroying any credibility they might have in the process. To have something "outrageous" to say, Murphy has repeatedly misstated both the facts of the case and the applicable law. A viewer who has any knowledge of the case can only assume that Murphy is either a liar or a fool, or both. Who will ever take this woman seriously again?

Great post. I am a law student and I just looked up Wendy Murphy on the Westlaw Profiler (which provides a list of all cases an attorney has been involved in). While the list is not always all-inclusive, a search of her name in MA turned up zero (0) result. Does this woman actually practice law?

I'm trying to avoid being offended by the condescending remarks about "adjunct" professors. K.C. and Bill Anderson should certainly know better. I retired from my first career (for which an advanced degree was required), went back to schoool for a Masters Degree in History, and now teach as an adjunct professor of history. At my school (a community college--so now K.C. and Bill will no doubt think I am a real dummy), the vast majority of history instructors are adjuncts. As best I can tell (and I know it's true for me), the adjuncts work very, very hard, and some of us do a pretty fair job of teaching for almost no compensation (if you count my preparation and grading time, I made substantially less than minimum wage last semester). I will likely never be a full-time professor since I do not have a Ph.D. in History and I am a conservative, white male who is more than 60 years old. Nevertheless, I love history and teaching, and as best I can tell, neither having a Ph.D. nor producing more scholarship in history would make me a better teacher. What I really do not need is having students think they are getting only a half-assed teacher because folks like K.C. and Bill (both of whom I greatly respect) go around denigrating me as "only an adjunct."

Wendy Murphy appears to be a bad joke as a legal commentator, but it is not because she is an adjunct professor. Furthermore, what does being a full-time professor, in and of itself, prove? Please remember that many of the Group of 88 are professors--"full-time" professors, at that; and full-time professors at one of the best schoool in America besides; and to top it off, some of them are full-time history professors who are among those most respected by other members of their field.

Assuming Wendy Murphy actually is licensed to practice law by the State of Massachusetts, she is certainly subject to their Code of Professional Responsibility. I just looked at the New York version, and it is clear the mandatory Discipline Rules apply even when the lawyer is engaging in "non-legal services," in other words even when she is not actually representing a client. I did not check, but I would expect MA. to have a similar provision. Furthermore, in New York she would be bound by Disciplinary Rule 1-102 A lawyer shall not: (3) Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. (4)Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.Ethical Consideration 1-4 (Ethical Considerations are not mandatory) also makes it clear that lawyers who have "knowledge"..."of conduct of another lawyer who the lawyer believes clearly to be in violation of the Disciplinary rules that raises a substantial question as to the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness in other respects as a lawyer" should bring the matter to the attention of the Bar.

Obviously, Irving Joyner is subject to the same Code as Mr. Nifong.

This is not a legal opnion; I am retired from practice. But it seems to me KC has done a beautiful job pointing out the dishonesty in Ms. Murphy's comments that has added to the deep public confusion about this case.

May I also point out that Alton Maddox, who "represented" Tawana Brawley as a spokesperson remains disbarred. In the Amsterdam News he complains bitterly about his disbarment and continues to maintain that Ms. Brawley was raped.

Observer P.S. Maybe I need to change my screen name...do NOT want to be associated with Prof. Joyner.

Thank you, KC, for pointing out all of Wendy the shrew's outrageous comments...I do believe that many of them are slanderous...her rantings have been infuriating, and she should face some repercussions for all that she's said...

10:59 here in my area of Massachusetts we just lost a civil lawyer because of a 13 month disbarment. He will be back after that.

All he did is, he forgot to tell the insurnace companies that his clients had died. He was still going through with him case.

Now that I look at Nifong I really hope he is disbarred for ever and doing some prison time, and as for Wendy. I am going to sitdown and write a letter asking why she is even allowed to teach law in my state.

But I think I already know the answer to that, she is nothing less that a die hard liberal feminist. I wouldn't want her to try a case that involved me that is for sure.

"I realize that commentators like Murphy are playing "roles" on these shows, but they are also destroying any credibility they might have in the process. "

So true...I think it's long past the time to stop blurring the distinction between news and entertainment...sadly, shows like Hannity and Colmes have a huge following, so the circus will likely continue...but when people's lives and well-being are at stake, it's no game...I've never been a big TV watcher, but since I have been following this case (from day one), I've tried to watch all of the TH shows to get information...virtually all the coverage has infuriated me...I get so much more from KC, Bill, Crystal Mess, and the Liestoppers crew than I ever could from the usual suspects of THs and their (mostly) brainless guests...

Murphy may actually occasionally teach a future Massachusetts attorney, but I actually find Joyner of NCCU more dangerous since he may very well be teaching the next Nifong-to-be in my state of NC. God help us. Also isn't a little ironic Bannon the lawyer who eviscerated Fong and Meahan graduated from Campbell the law school with the highest NC bar passage rate, while Joyner teaches at the school with the lowest passage rate, NCCU.

I remember her on Nancy Grace saying...no SCREAMING.."THEY ARE RAPISTS, THEY ARE RAPISTS, THEY RAPED THIS WOMAN, THEY ARE RAPISTS". I remember that verbatim. I was outraged. I remember thinking "she cant say that can she?"

I think that after seeing the inexplicable success of the Nancy Grace Show, one of the many voices in Wendy Murphy's head said "Hey I'm crazy enough to host a show like that", and she has been auditioning for the position ever since.

In an effort to be fair and balanced both Fox and MSNBC must have realized that only a crazy person could side with the prosecution on matters relating to the Duke Hoax.

As usual there is no explanation for whatever the lefties at CNN are imagining.

Are there any attorneys out there willing to take on this slander/libel case?

11:27 AM

Not a lawyer. Just curious about the status of the networks and cable shows that have allowed her statements to go unchallenged. Are they subject to the same possible slander/libel suits? If they bring her back continuously to spew her lies aren't they just as liable?

I was recently asked to appear on CNN and FOX on a story related to the three climbers lost on Mount Hood. Anderson Cooper was gracious and stuck to the general topics I had discussed in advance with his producers. Two days later, the FOX producer and I agreed on the scope of the questions but when we went live the first question was total bait-and-switch -- which I refused to answer. FOX has no compunction about putting people on the spot in an effort to generate sensational news -- even where it does not exist. My first impulse after leaving the studio was to take a shower. FOX was looking for people to bash the climbers, and I agreed to discuss survival in the mountains. Wendy appears to gravitate to that kind of interaction – at the cost of her credibility.

I can hope that some callers in to folks like O'Reilly, Larry King, Hannity can get some whacks in on them for hiring disgusting evil harpies like Grace and Murphy.

Put some of the onus on them, the host.

"I know it's showbiz. But are you telling me that of all the color commentary out there you can't do better than a hateful woman you and your producers know is lying to your audience??"

Let O'Reilly and Larry KIng sputter and explain themselves.

If the public makes it clear that they pin the banshees being on so much on the enabling host and producers, perhaps a little embarassment can register, and they might look around for a "non-discredited" commentator.

Nothing wrong with being a vendor of infotainment. But plenty of color people out their do not lie and misrepresent themselves like Grace and Murphy do.

I would love for SNL or John Stewart to pick up with new editions of the Nancy Grace spoof they started.

A mock Nancy Grace interview with Precious would be absolutely hysterical. A spot with Grace interviewing "Guest castrating bitch and noted Professor at New England School of Law" Wendy Murphy, would also be a riot.

So Wendy, is it true, in your expert legal opinion that male pets are evil?

Absolutely, Nancy. There is a silent epidemic of raped and abused cats and dogs. Even parakeets, which my expert legal research shows, 5 in 7 lady parakeets are traumatized shy honor student victims of rape.

The...the....monsters! How can we stand for it?? This must end by any means necessary!!

Trials Nancy! In my home state, we have a long histories of trials that set these things right. Believe the children. Believe the rape accuser. They never lie..They Never Lie! Fight! Take back the night! Get the men...parakeets, oppressor humans. Punish them all! Punish....

Oh Wendy, here's a hankie. Now that we are on commercial break, the producers want you to wipe the froth off your mouth. Sean Hannity called and said he was "moved" by your anger on the dog, cat, and parakeet wall of silence.

My point was NOT to denigrate adjuncts. I have worked as an adjunct myself and I appreciate much of the good work that adjuncts do.

My point was that she has been passing herself off as a PROFESSOR OF LAW at the New England Law School. I seriously doubt that you have done the same, and that you call yourself a PROFESSOR at the place where you teach.

Even I don't pass myself off as "professor." I am an Associate Professor of Economics, and I do not claim professorship. (I have to wait another six years before I can apply for that promotion.)

My point was not to attack you or other adjuncts. It is just that Murphy is someone who is dishonest in all walks of life.

7:00 wrote: "But let me turn the question back on you. What kind of a blog hosts one jc from bc who, writing at 12:45 on a computer that apparently lacks a shift key, advances the causes of truth and justice with the opinion that “Wendy likes her ass smacked with a flounder”?"

Come on! There is a major difference between a blog where people of their own accord enter and comment and a network inviting a liar like Murphy on and providing her a platform for her villainy.

And there's a big difference as well between the admittedly sophomoric "flounder" remark and the genuinely damaging sort of disinformation that Murphy propagates.

everyone here needs to wake up. we can moan and groan about wendy murphy, nancy grace, mike nifong etc. but the problem is much bigger than that.

white people need to think about why an ordinary run of the mill rape case get made into a national case? i tell you why. the original story (i know there are multiple versions, but give me some latitude here) was the black woman raped by white men. you have a polically correct victim and politically incorrect perpetrators.

the case would have gotton no more than a mention in the local section of the durham paper if the perpetrator had been black and the victim white or both victim and perpetrator of the same race. but, since we had "proof" that white men are still the oppressors, it had to be braodcast across the country so that everyone could see what white men are up to when no one is watching.

unfortunately, the idea that white men are the boogey men that oppress minorities is a myth both from a systemic level and more direct personal level. more whites are afriad of blacks, given the latter's propensity for violence. but that gets no coverage in the press.

no, what gets coverage is the MSM's view of white men opression the world. and that is a myth. we should not worry too much about wendy murphy. she made a fool of herself and since she's a fool that should come as no surprise.

i'm more concerned that this same scenario will happen again yet next time there may very will be convictions if the accused are not as wealthy as these boys. the left wants to shut nifong up. he's done enough damage to their "truth" that white men oppress the world.

I'm afraid we will all have forgotton about this the next time it comes up.

The common thread with Wendy Murphy, the original pot bangers, and even the recent anti-Nifong editorials is that desire for an outcome is a substitute for facts.

Murphy wanted the lacrosse players to be evil, so everything fits into that template. The pot bangers had a long standing grudge against certain people and the crime fit so they supported the "victim" uncritically. Now the media needs a new villain, and Nifong fits. And yes, the facts support making Nifong the victim but, even with the recent developments, the basic facts demonstrating that this is a hoax have been known for months.

1) The lacrosse players said in advance of the DNA results that they did not touch the stripper, a result that was confirmed.

2) It is impossible for the rape and sexual assault not to leave any DNA, a fact that Nifong knew when he said the results woudl be conclusive.

3) The line-up violated all rules.

4) Nifong stirred the pot unethcially with false comments.

5) There was no medical evidence of rape or assualt.

6) Reade Seligmann was not present.

and, of course, more.

All these facts are now cited in these angry editorials, but why now? They are cited now because now Nifong is the villain and so he must be punished. The punishment is just, but that does not matter. Even in these latest editorials, the writers refer to the "lacrosse players reprehensible behavior" trying to find another side to this. Even if you believed that one player had made a racial slur, and even if you believed that the three captains were "reprhensible" for hiring dancers, what does that have to with all the lacrosse players.

Yes, while I am relieved that the tide is turning and the media monster that Nifong created is turning on him, the question is--"what took so long."

When I read this article, the first thing that jumped out at me, a non lawyer, was “deep pockets”. It does no good to sue unless there is a reasonable chance of actually receiving any monies awarded. Any news network obviously has the money to pay damages.

Will the 3 duke kids have actionable cases against the “news” networks that repeatedly put this person on the air only to spout outright falsehoods which greatly defamed the 3wrongfully accused kids.

Does the news network have a responsibility to check the veracity of the supposed “expert” it’s putting on the air? While one could condone a onetime error, using that same “expert” over and over; the “expert” who’s wrong or has made up the “facts”, should certainly show egregious lack of care in vetting that “expert”. One thing that would greatly increase any liability would be payment to the “expert”, thereby making them an employee of the network, if only a temporary one.

Would such willful negligence, which furthered the nationwide, on air defamation of the wrongly accused, make the networks subject to damages? I don’t know but assume that the lawyers for the Duke kids will be examining that closely.

In addition to the damning list of Wendy Murphy vitriol cited by Professor Johnson, LieStoppers and I (in the Comments section) provided a number of other Murphy distortions, lies and fabricated statistics in the Hag of the Hoax column here: http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/08/hag-of-hoax.html

1:15The infamous "What if a date rape drug was used". Nifong said that to Newsweek. Later we find out:

A hair test months later, finds no date rape drug.

The AV used a powerful muscle relaxation drug (Flexeril, prescription required). Warning do not mix with alcohol. (think back to her history of blacking out as in the club).

I have never heard a good reason that a full drug screening, urine and blood was not done on the night of the rape. Seems strange that a intoxicated woman in an ER claim to be raped whould not get a blood sample drawn.

In my opinion there is plenty of room here for JC! I thought the flounder comment was based on Spamalot, which may be sophomoric in some respects...but it is VERY funny, even to me who, if I did drop "Observer," would become "Church Lady."

Bill: Again, Joyner may be an idiot, but be very careful what you hope for. Nifong's obligations as a prosecutor make this cut and dry against him, and because of the power of his position, it is an important difference. Prosecutors like Nifong are the same guys that railroad minorities who are innocent to win a case and earn gravy points ta the local level. Abuse of power serves the self interest of the person abusing it. The fact that Durham's more obstinate residents fail to comprehend this fact astounds me. But for the grace of God....

For Joyner and co., they have earned the scorn of their colleagues, but I would be much more wary about seeking ethical charges against them. They do not have the powers of a prosecutor. The route to follow is civil liability, which is a good course. Nothing has a greater effect on human behavior then writing a large check.

windbag, many of us are screaming about this! I just posted today on Liestoppers that Prof. Joyner would NEVER take the position that he's taken if the false accuser had been white and the boys black...many people are saying this...I think that the gig is going to be up soon with regard to the race baiters and their tactics, thanks ONLY to the bloggers...

I've heard that tox screens aren't being done on alleged rape victims out of concern that if the victims are found to be drunk and/or on drugs, the defense later on can use these fundings to impeach the testimony of these alleged victims.So, the tox screens aren't done to protect the alleged victims. Then of course I also heard things contradictory to this, so, perhaps it varies from state to state.

A Message from James F. Clyne, who occasionally posts on this forum as "jc"

I'm a minor celebrity, having collaborated on various projects with geniuses like Donald Barthelme and Deborah Turbeville. I am a producer/art director/writer/photographer/editor

I recently founded a production company, Nighttown Media. I received my AB from Boston College, and went to graduate school at harvard, wisconsin, and texas. Recently, i've posted some nasty posts about AAAS (a k a "black studies"), basically questioning its right to funding; I also pointed out that black studies is a magnet for black racists--thus the Wahneemas of the world wanting to put your sons in jail.

I suspect someone knows that I'm a major bad-ass, so they're posting under "jc"--there's nothing i can do about that. True, i occasionally write sophomoric posts, but they r witty.

7:00: i'll overlook those jabs u took at the other "jc" and strongly agree with you--putting diametrically opposed views on the air in the promise of "balance" is a joke: according to that logic, u'd put just as much garlic as pasta into lasagna--what the producers should b doing is finding the most intelligent people possible to discuss the issues--intelligent people naturally disagree occasionally on certain aspects of any case--so, yes, what u c on TV often ends up being pedestrian analysis--but what person in his right mind relies on TV for cogent analysis of complex issues?

12:51: u have misdiagnosed the politics here: precious as victim is politically correct, boys as perps is also politically correct--blacks as perps is politically incorrect--folly?

cedarford: the respective "gravitas" of james coleman and young evans?--suggest u review coleman's "credentials" with the same diligence as u reviewed wendy murphy's--he's also a lightweight--a convenient lightweight for the dukies--isn't evans the gavonne who hired the strippers?--correct me if i'm wrong

WHAT IS WENDY MURPHY TO THE NETWORKS? i've got lots of friends in the biz, kiddie kats: By putting the likes of murphy on the air, the execs r showing their support for antimale rape-shield laws and continuation of the American outrage of not severely punishing false accusers

Mikey Nifong's 2006 resolution: try to fall behind in election polls, borrow $30,000 to fund a fading campaign,falsely accuse at least 3 Duke athletes of rape and assault, lie about the case excessively to the mass media in order to gain votes, conduct case after case of prosecutor misconduct, meet some of the members of the friendly New Black Panthers party, do everything possible to make an idiot of oneself, receive complaints from the NC bar association, get denounced by the North Carolina conference of DAs, try to get divorced by wife & kicked out of her house.

Mikey Nifong’s 2007 resolution: Move in with buddy Brodhead(& have discussions about how you almost got away with it), Pack clothes & skip border asap.

I also want false accuer registry just the same as the sex offender one. Now that will discourage anyone from filing a fasle report, knowing that there name, home address, phone number and place of employment is on the internet for all to see.

They should call it the Michael Nifong Crystal Gail Mangum Law.

All the people involved with this hoax has set back the rights of all Americans.

unfortunately, the idea that white men are the boogey men that oppress minorities is a myth both from a systemic level and more direct personal level. more whites are afriad of blacks, given the latter's propensity for violence. but that gets no coverage in the press.

================================That certainly is news to me as a black man. Windbag would you care to cite proof of your assertion?

VIM, I am very interested in your views of the rape shield laws. Before these laws, victims faced a character assassination on the stand when pressing a rape complaint, unless their sexual history was impeccable. I agree the laws may be too restrictive. And I understand the arguments that (1) there is no longer a stigma associated with being a rape victim and (2) what used to be considered wild, wanton, and promiscuous behavior and be held against the victim in a trial, may now be considered nothing all that unusual by today's standards, BUT I cannot imagine a wholesale repeal of the rape shield laws. I do believe the complete license to expose every rape victim's complete sexual history would discourage victims from reporting the crime and not serve the interests of justice.

Having said that, it is clear false rape charges are lodged at a much higher rate than many have been willing to acknowledge. As JC pointed out, though, often what one perceives as consensual sex, the other may perceive as rape. There is a strong argument that for their own protection, men really have to be very, very sure about their partner--as we know the risk of being careless or wrong has the potential to wreck a life--kind of like AIDS.

The database idea for false accusers does not bother me at all, as long as the false accuser has had a trial and the falsity of her accusations has been proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

JC, in your situation, do you believe the person who accused you should have been punished?

I think this will be a big week. The anti-Fong wave is coming in like a tsunami, and there literally is nothing he can do to stop it.

A lot of people who either believed Nifong's lies at the beginning or who were on the sidelines are now jumping into the game. There is no way that the government authorities in North Carolina are going to prop up Nifong, because anyone seen as standing by their man is going to be seen as supporting corruption.

I hope that the Democrats can put pressure on people like John Edwards and others who normally would either have backed the Fong or would try to be seen as neutral. The more people who pile on the better.

(I have no standing with Democrats, as I am a registered Libertarian. Obviously, I have no standing with Republicans, either.)

I must also say that I am not at all happy with the tone of the racial discussion going on. Yes, race and class drove this, and, yes, the NAACP has permanently discredited itself as a "civil rights" organization in my eyes, but as the father of two black sons (and a girl from Guatemala), I am not going to buy into the racial arguments.

That being said, the performance of much of the black community in Durham, as well as the black press, such as the Wilmington Journal and Cash Michaels, has been shameful. Yet, we whites also have our history of shameful behavior and we do have the Scottsboro Boys case as a reminder that whites have been just as inclined to railroad innocent people as has been Irving Joyner.

BA, u make a good point, but we should take it a step further by asking candidates for presidency what should b done about america's false accuser problem and the rape-shield laws

O, great analysis, as usual

u know i'm not an attorney, so i feel a bit out of my natural habitat (which is the gutter--lol) re sophisticated discussion of rape shield (rs) laws--i do know that they vary from state to state, with various degrees of protection

u obviously make a valid point, which is exposing alleged victim's sexual history--i could b wrong about this, but how does a person's sexual history relate to rape? to me, that is irrelevant, even if the AV spreads her legs as much as paris hilton

the woman who accused me of "forcefully touching her breast over the bra" is probably as unstable as precious

4 policemen banged on my door at 5am--the "victim" was prostrate in my hallway screaming: "Get the Jew--get that dirty rabbi"--guess what? i was arrested within 30 seconds based solely on the accusation--i was lucky: manhattan's DA, robert morgenthau, is damn good, so the charge didn't pass muster with the grand jury, but this process took about 8 months--so literally i was waiting for a knock on the door for 8 months

i'd have this bitch locked up for 10 years for what she did to me

all i could do about her is get her fired from her job--big deal, she's a hairdresser and probably got a job in a week

Ob 2:56pm Let me start by saying that I feel that if a person has filed any form of a false report needs to be exposed.

As for the rape shield laws they need to be limited to only people who are not in the position to defend themselves a.k.a. childern under age 16,the mental or person's born with a disablility.

If you put yourself in an job that makes you a high risk for filing these kind of charges,"strippers, hookers" then nothing should be off limits.

Today a lot of younger women tease men like crazy, just to see how far it can or will go. If the girl doesn't get what she wants then she can go down a cry rape at this time. Any person can file a false complaint and yes wreck the lives of many.

That is what needs to stop. I hate to say this, but if that means girls don't come forward for a long time, they only have to look tho Durham NC, and Crystal Gail Mangum and Michael Nifong to understand why the laws need to change.

JC, No wonder you are so interested in this case. I have to get prepared for the New Year's Eve celebration, so I am signing off for today. Happy New Year's everyone! After the extraodinary events of the last couple of weeks, it looks like the New Year will be a very good one indeed for the Duke defendants...and, I hope, for all of us.

Ob

P.S. Does anyone understand how Al Sharpton managed to survive the Tawana Brawley fiasco while Alton Maddox is permanently disgraced? Was it just the fact the Mr. Maddox was a lawyer and actually held to ethical standards and Mr. Sharpton was a reverend/political opportunist and not as accountable? Or did Al Sharpton actively rehabilitate his reputation is some way that I missed?

Bill Anderson - I agree on your remarks of over the top racist comments. While some on the Left would consider you racist simply for criticizing ANY black person or group, I think you are wise and doing a service when you call out people that use ALL blacks are this or that.... type slurs.

3:24PM Anonymous post - I am sorry you get some racist chatter. It is true that some racists have gravitated to the Duke cause. It is true that they feel angry about many of the same issues as the non-racists here, hopefully we can discern between the issues and peoples motives and biases - and still be honest and go past PC to point out those playing race, gender, class, and identity politics on both sides. Clearly there are black racists and white ones involved, and a fair number of self-loathing whites targeting the Duke players. PC has left many that should be nailed hard, like Joyner, Victoria Peterson, the Gang of 88, Murphy - largely unscathed from mainstream media criticism.

I do see the MSM coming to the Nifong pile-on, Bill. I am cynical enough that I think they are trying to do it to finger Nifong as the one Evil Arch-perverter of justice and shield all the other contributors or enablers from investigation and consequences by making Nifong the only fall guy.I would not like this to end with the head of Nifong on a pike and everyone insisting it was time to "move past this, let the community heal, and go back to business as normal in DPD, DA's office, media, Duke faculty and administration, and in Durhams "social justice" groups.

"I've just heard from our colleague, KC Johnson, that he and Stuart Taylor, Jr., the respected columnist at National Journal, will co-author a book about the Duke lacrosse players and the prosecuting attorney who may yet be disbarred for his handling of the case against them. I like to think the book was born at Cliopatria and took on a life of its own at Durham-in-Wonderland. Is there a better example of a historian as an active public intellectual and the potential power of blogs to make a difference in the real world of public life? The book by Johnson and Taylor will, of course, be eligible for the $10,000 Lulu Blooker Prize."

okay, criticisms of my latest post are deserved. but my point is simply that this case got attention because it fit a certain viewpoint that the MSM promotes.

i actually have no problem with black people, but i do often wonder how we will ever function as a multicultural society if the people for "social justice" contantly insist on continuing the same crimes that were perpetrated in the past. the only difference is that whites will suffer the way blacks once did. if this group wants to accept that power and not reason should prevail, then it makes no sense for a white majority to allow a minority group to rule over them. the majority should simply turn the tables on them.

i don't think that black people fear white people. other than this case, please find another episode where whites sought out blacks as victims. of course there are some horrible incidents such as the church burnings and the jesse byrd incident, but on a day by day basis, its whites who fear blacks.

I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.--“The Situation,” 5 June 2006

This is by far the most ingenuous statement I have ever heard in the justice business. I average about three rape allegations a week in my area. Approx. 50% are withdrawn within a short period because the Accuser "tells law enforcement they made it up for various reasons". Approx. 20% are found to have no proof to secure an Indictment. Of the remaining 30% there is usually an indictment of which a high percentage plead(and allocute with the victim's permission) to lower charges. I would venture to say approx 100% of the accusers that have actually been raped continue through the entire trial process to convict the Rapist.

There is a line at the Prosecutor's(DA0 window to drop charges as these cases are progressing. The accusers reasons are usualy custody, financial or just plain spite/revenge. I have never in 26 years seen a person that was actually raped request to drop charges for ANY reason. The entire process is a joke set up by woman's groups and victim's rights advocates. They would not have jobs if they didn't create cases.

This Wendy Murphy clown must have practiced law in a vacuum. Does anyone have her record as a DA? My take is she was so bad, she had to leave to be an assistant Prof. at an unknown legal forum. She possibly posts on this site as THE MAN

In a practical sense the rape allegations seem to work themselves out over time. That is not the best for the Accused but it tends to rely on the relationship of the accused and accuser. The prosecutor must look very hard at these cases. They can't just take the police reports and call it a day. They must follow up with the victim and make sure there is evidence and no alterior motives. Da's and Prosecutors tend to let things sit around waiting for trial. In the duke LAX case, Nifong did not bother to talk to the AV about the case. BS he knew what she said and kept her hidden.

Rape shield laws are okay if the Pros. does look into the V's background themselves to be sure they are doing the right thing. The problem with Rape shield or any criminal case is most pros. want convictions to bolster their resume. Anyone truly investigating the cases at hand will rarely have the case blow-up in their face.

Al Sharpton has been primarily an opportunist from his days at Tilden High School, through making gospel 45s with James Brown, to his shrill media personality. He's not stupid and grudgingly I must admit he has tried to somewhat rehabilitate himself from his worse excesses (such as Twanaa Brawley), but not by saying he was wrong, but by being somewhat more restrained prospectively. If he was more honest and had more courage, he could actually accomplish something by not playing strictly by the race card. In his personal life he demonstrated that he didn't believe his own nonsense by sending his kids to Poly Prep.

Rape shield laws were supposedly enacted from having to put legitimate rape victims on trial themselves. Unfortunately, they have evolved into a tool used by the prosecution to exclude what is exculpatory evidence.

The problem is that feminists do not care, because they don't really care whether a rape conviction is false or not. Wendy McElroy told me that feminists do not like the Innocence Project and DNA evidence because often the eyewitness accounts and the science do not jibe. It goes against Wendy Murphy's "the accuser always is right" nonsense.

And I do think it will be a good year for those who have stood on the right side, and a bad year for Mikey. And as for the MSM, as I said before, they don't want to be caught on the losing side.

Last spring, WE were on the losing side, and the MSM was against us. Now it seems that the tide has turned, which means the media now "sees the light." Gotta love it.

to 512 from a non-attorney. No matter how disgusting and despicable her commentary is, I am quite reluctant to muzzle anyone. Ms. Murphy may be an idiot, but I would defend her freedom of speech. Regulating what one can say is a slippery slope. On the other hand, we should stop watching shows where they give her a platform to voice her hate speach. On the other hand, Nifong has special responsibilities about what he can say about a case because he is serving as the "minister of justice".

Wendy Murhpy does have freedom of speech. What she doesn't have is the right to go on national televison and slander someone, spew outright lies and make things up to push her cause. As a legal commentator she can not slander someone without consequences.

5:59 to 512 from a non-attorney. No matter how disgusting and despicable her commentary is, I am quite reluctant to muzzle anyone. Ms. Murphy may be an idiot, but I would defend her freedom of speech. Regulating what one can say is a slippery slope.

As KC said, the 1st is no immunity to libel and slander.

But it is also no immunity in protection from the consequences of behavior and speech that brings discredit on employers.

Murphy has been given a MSM forum by several networks to deceive, to lie repeatedly to members of the public - millions of them. Her lies do affect the CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Court TV, and NPR credibility. They are presenting her as a professor and an expert - not an entertainer. Her loss of credibility is their loss of credibility. And she discredits the 3rd tier Law School she uses to establish her employment based on her supposed vast knowledge of law and societal matters.

Free speech does not protect her from employers repercussions, and they should be severe.

This pathological liar belongs at no Law School, belongs in front of no Network cameras reaching tens of millions of Americans.

Same with Nancy Grace.

Producers had better get rid of their idea these "credible commentators" are moneymakers and realize they are potentially as bad a stain on a network as Dan Rather became with his "fake but accurate" story.

Alan Dershowitz today asked me to give him some evidence that she had taught at Harvard, so I was able to send him some links and copy. A lot of attorneys in Massachusetts really despise her (hence my "spitting on her grave" comment in a recent article), and she has been so shrill and over-the-top in the Duke case that I am sure there will be some payback for her down the line.

My guess is that she will have a hard time getting a teaching job again at a law school, at least in that state. Most attorneys (except for maybe Woody Vann) know that Nifong's case comes out of the back end of a bull.

Well, Vann probably comes cheaper than Joe Cheshire, and I think that Cheshire is busy right now.

While this case is imploding, remember that just a few months ago, it seemed that Nifong held all of the cards and was pushing this thing to trial. I can be thankful that people like K.C. really cared, and that there was a host of people out there ready to take a stand.

I'd say that the odds of the State of North Carolina, the NAACP and other "civil rights" organizations, as well as the MSM on one side, and attorneys limited by gag orders and a few loosely-connected bloggers on the other, that it really was not a fair fight.

I would have to agree. It was not fair, as perhaps K.C. should have blogged with both hands tied behind his back. After reading the letters, Joan Foster's pieces, and other such things, I realize that the bozos of the MSM really were not in the same league. I'd tell them to go back to the minors, but they never were in the majors in the first place.

I sense that this will be a big week. Time to get out the pots and spoons and attend someone's swearing-in ceremony!

I would be remiss in not wishing K.C. a most Happy New Year. K.C., you did not get into this thing to gain fame or even a writer's fee. You got into it because of the outrageous behavior of Michael Nifong and the Duke University Gang of 88 and how they greviously abused their positions of trust.

Indeed, I raise a toast to you and others who have worked hard -- at your own expense -- to bring this hoax to light. Without your efforts, I have no doubt that the defense in this case -- though it had truth on its side -- would have had a much more difficult task ahead of it.

I cannot speak for the families, but I can say that from the perspective of someone who cares about things like wrongful convictions and the abuse of power by government authorities, thank you very much for all you have done. I will raise a glass (or two, or three, or...) tonight in your honor.

hv mainly used the internet as research, so i don't know about these things

thanks

jc

PS I'm actually flattered that i have an "admirer"--this boy is funny, but i was beginning to wonder y no one was acknowledging my posts--and to b honest--if i had the time--imitating an opinionated bastard like myself must b fun

jc don't use blue because when we use links here they come across in blue that will make it to confussing. Please try a name if you are in the show biz field then tailor a name around that? That is just my opinion.

Rape shield laws spread across the common law world, though generally in a far less drastic form than in the US, because every victim cross-examination opened with 'What were you wearing at the time?' followed quickly by 'And dressed like that, you did not think my client, the defendant, would take it you were available?' An unmarried woman who was not a virgin could expect to be asked why the defendant would not think she was availabel to anyone. A woman without injuries could expect to be asked if she'd resisted and if not, why not.

The rape shield laws obviously need reform, but that is not the same thing as abolition.

It is also not immediately obvious why there should be some special offence of falsely accusing rape but not other crimes. Now where I come from the alleged victim's condut, on facts we now know, would probably amount to perverting the course of justice which carries a sentence of 14 years. Ditto the actions of Nifong. If you want to restrain tyrannical prosecutions you need punish tyrannical prosecutors.

If Nifong had carried out his duties according to law, these indictments would never have happened. The law reform Nifong's conduct calls for should focus on the unchecked power of prosecutors, not reverting sexual assault laws to the Middle Ages.

I just looked throught the MA Rules of Professional Conduct, and if there is a rule similar to the provision in the NY version regarding "non-legal services," it did not jump out at me. There is a MA provision about application of the Rules to "legal related services" (which include accounting, financial planning, etc.), but I do not know whether this could be interpreted to include television commentary. I also did not see that handy catchall injunction against fraud, deceit etc. that could possibly be used to cover Ms. Murphy's comments. Maybe I missed it. Her nationally televised comments are a disgrace to the legal profession, and I hope something--an employer or a suit for libel/slander/defamation==pulls her up short. Since her conduct is, in fact, highly unprofessional, it would be reasonable to think the Rules of Professional Conduct could apply and work to keep her somewhat in check. It is not clear to me that they do. Maybe some reform is in order?

Her recent USA Today article actually made me stop and write her an email because it was so factually inaccurate it was a little disturbing. These are a few of the things I wrote to her:

First, I urge you to read N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1 Rule 412 once again, which discusses the relevance of the victim’s past behavior for rape OR SEXUAL OFFENSE CASES. The statute reads: (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the sexual behavior of the complainant is irrelevant to any issue in the prosecution unless such behavior…(2) Is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant. Consequently, a judge is likely to be persuaded that the fact that other men’s genetic material was found inside of the complaining witness on the night of the alleged offense (despite her now clearly fabricated claim that she had not had sexual relations for more than a week before the night of the alleged attack) offers a plausible explanation that the alleged sexual offenses (if they in fact occurred) were committed by other men, and not these three defendants. Thus, even with the exclusion of the rape charge, the defense would still be able to introduce the evidence; the Constitution would preclude any other outcome.

Secondly, you missed the mark completely on the photo lineup. You completely gloss over the fact that the lineup violated a host of specific Durham, state, and federal requirements for photo identifications. Why did they choose to deviate from the regulations to begin with?

Finally, uncorroborated double hearsay regarding a $2M payout is completely irrelevant and simply sensational journalism at its best. Even if true, the alumni may be motivated by more than the guilt or innocence of the accused. Anyways, Wendy, feel free to correct me on anything you wish, bet I felt obligated to address some of the glaring problems in your analysis of the issues.

Wendy Murphy is the most logical voice among the "experts" . The vitriol and hideous tone of these comments speaks volumes about the sick American psyche with its hateful bigotry, shallow, even burtal mentality, and programmed direction - anti-thought, anti-women, anti-humane, anti-wisdom. We need more like Wendy and less (who have sold out) like Nancy Grace. Wendy had it right with the Anna Nicole Smith case, unlike the rest of them, when she noted that the cart was put before the horse. Something really smells in that case, and the odor is coming from the Stern camp. Nancy Grace seems on a mission to hide the foul plays going on.

It took 395 days, but this travesty has ended. Finally, the State Attorney General came forward and told the world that no crime had occurred, that the prosecutor was out of control, and the accuser was a liar.

So you get to walk free. Which is as it should be. Which is how it should have been within a matter of hours after the accusation was made.

But will there will be justice? Already the media is focusing on that malignant woman's "chaotic life". Already the NC Attorney General's office is indicating that they don't favor pursuing her. The game's afoot; in spite of what she did to you, she's a victim and should be allowed to go on about her miserable life.

And Nifong? Well, if there is any justice at all, he'll wind up disbarred and in prison. That actually could happen; we'll see.

But, as you are aware - as you made very clear in your statements before the press yesterday - there is a larger issue at work here. This issue is the massive degree of discrimination and injustice encountered by men everywhere in this society, in the area of familial and sexual relations.

You can't deny it; you can't question it; you have seen it yourselves. That you weren't destroyed by it is due to two reasons. First, your families have considerable means and could protect you. Second, the accusation was picked up by the national press and therefore the whole nation was looking. ABC News did a good job for you; they were the first (and for a long time the only) media source that was skeptical and avoided a rush to judgement.

Where would you three be if you hadn't been fairly well off, with families behind you and lots of publicity which wound up working for you? You'd be in prison for rape. Your lives would be over, on the word of a drugged-out liar and at the whim of a prosecutor who is a criminal.

Are you three the only ones in the nation who have been subject to such a scurrilous attack? Is Nifong the only rogue prosecutor who is out there?

You know better. At least tens of thousands of men have been railroaded and are being destroyed today by the attitude that was on clear display when you were first accused.

The despicable attitude displayed by the 88 professors at Duke, and by the Duke administration - an attitude which none of them have repudiated - is widely held among campus faculties around the country. These nutty professors are doing their best to indoctrinate men and women who will be our future leaders in the same bile-filled, insane, and contemptible attitudes toward men that they themselves displayed toward you.

So, now you are free at last. But your female accuser is going to walk, unless someone does something. Nifong'll get his, but then he's a man, isn't he? The double standard will bring him down even as it lets her walk. Of course, he happens to deserve it, but she deserves it too.

You now have a decision to make.

You have been massively wronged, and while you will be able to right that wrong to yourselves, the widespread wrong will remain. You are at this point in time uniquely positioned to attack that wrong, and you must do so.

In the Land of the (formerly) Free, a man stands guilty as accused, if his accuser is a woman. A man can be stripped of his home, his property, his children at the whim of a woman, if the man was so foolish as to marry her.

There is a widespread, and totally insane, attitude that a man is a predator and therefore if he isn't guilty today, then he either was yesterday or will be tomorrow, so punishing him is appropriate. The courts have bought into this insanity, with the consequence that men have lost virtually all rights under the Constitution when the matter before the court has to do with family or sex.

Men are literally enslaved paying child support for children that are not theirs - when everyone including the court recognizes and acknowledges the truth that the child is not the man's. (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/5042368FFF852CB6862572B9000B317F?OpenDocument)

The growing witchhunt in this land about sexual abuse is targeted almost exclusively at men. The presumption is that men are indeed predators. Granting that some small percentage are, the fact remains that the very vast majority are not. Even many men say to themselves: "I know that I would never behave that way, but I know that other men do, so I must help catch them." Then, like yourselves, they are appalled when they themselves stand accused, and presumed guilty.

You have experienced it first hand. You were unusually well situated to survive it. Most men are not so well positioned.

And now it is time for you to attack. This attitude must be destroyed. Those who promulgate the attitude (you know who many of them are, just as I know and everyone reading this knows) must be brought down.

To begin, Crystal Gail Mangum must face felony charges for the monstrous thing she did - not just to you, but to all men. She needs to go to prison, if for no other reason than to deter the many other crazy females out there who'll accuse a man on any pretext or none. Women routinely get away with this; it must end.

Nifong needs a nice long prison sentence, and I certainly hope that your lawsuit strips him of literally everything.

And beyond them is Duke University. And the 88 nutty professors. And the National Organization of Women. And an increasingly poisonous culture that is determined to destroy men.

There are millions of men who will join you. But you must lead. At this point in time, no one but you can lead this fight.

Hey Bill Anderson: She Teaches a class every semester....I took it last year. Should do a little better research. (Don't be what you are accusing her of). No question she missed it on the Duke case, but she has an interesting and passionate perspective on our system that is worth debate! Pretty good chance she had some inside facts you didn't, and the news didn't release. Again I think she was wrong about the Duke case but she's an entertaining commentator and a good Prof. So you disagree with her...great...calm down, she's not Brian Williams she is meant to come from a certain perspective on these shows. The Idea that she should be disbarred, or not teach is really crazy.

I know Wendy Murphy personally. And i have to say, she takes her strange approach to arguing even in a personal setting. Unwilling and unable to see any truth but her own, Ms. Murphy is the definition of stubborn. Her motto, "All men are rapists and all women are victims" will undermine the justice system and bring an end to what we know as "civil liberties". Thank god she is the minority in this argument or we would all be screwed.

What makes me sick concerning Wendy Murphy is her thinly veiled attempt to hide behind being a "CHILD ADVOCATE" when in relaity she is clearly a women's activist without regard to anything male. I have written to Fox News' Bill O'rielly several times asking him to use another commentary. I have tried to point out her clear women's rights, women's lib agenda. I consider myself very right leaning but Wendy Murphy is a piece of work with her women's agenda. PLEASE Fox News, get someone else besides Murphy! Murphy has an agenda! Her opinions are strongly tainted! She makes me sick! Seek another person! Let Wendy Murphy go her way dictating that men are bad and women are good. Let Wendy Murphy stand on the opinion that women should be allowed to run wild. Let Wendy Murphy advocate for child rapists as long as they are female, spouting there is a difference between the male child rapist verses the female child rapist and that the female needs less control. Go figure!

She's just been running her mouth tonight on the JonBenet Ramsey case - and once again she is calamitously wrong, still claiming the parents are guilty as far as I can tell. Even Nancy Grace has given up on that, but not the insane (IMO) Ms Murphy.

Who commits most sex crimes? Well, 95% of all new sex crimes are committed by those NOT on the registry. Family members and those known to the family commit 98% of all sex crimes. So much for stranger danger.2nd question. Who is MORE LIKELY to committ a sex crime upon release from prison? Sex Offenders or NON-sex offenders?

For the answer, go here. www.cfcoklahoma.org and see the article, "Revisiting Department of Justice Recidivism Statistics and More Shocking Truths."

It is unfortunate that Wendy Murphy has been attacked for speaking up for victims. Perpetrators have always tried to discredit their victims. I applaud Dr. Murphy's decision to stand up for the those who are on the short side of the law. Now the rich and powerful try to discredit her. Truth and the messengers of truth will always be be lambasted by those who wish to take down the young and poor. I applaud Ms. Murphy and her efforts to bring justice to victims.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review